[B-Greek] Third-person commands

Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Thu Nov 10 02:48:00 EST 2005


Hi, Don,

Let me delete some of your text and keep some to comment on below:

> As a translator, I have to deal with the issue of what to do with "let" used in a
> third-person command. The problem is an old one: "let" is usually
> read as permission, which clashes with the idea of an imperative.

To view the 3. ps. "imperative" (which is better called jussive) as either a permission or a command would be 
misleading. Maybe it is the English "let" that is misleading?
It is really only the 2. ps. "imperative" that can be properly termed a command (and even that may express a request or 
consession, BDF 387). The 1.st person jussive ("imperative") is not used in Greek. Instead the subjunctive is used. But 
many languages have a 1. ps. jussive, especially in the plural. The plural is often called a "hortative". English uses 
"let" for that as in "Let us go now". It is neither a permission nor a command. In some contexts it refers to an 
obligation, in others to a request.

> But where things get really thorny is in a passage like 1 Cor. 7:15:
> "...if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave...." I have always taken
> this to be a command to the unbeliever following the third-person
> grammar, and I still do, but I'll bet that 95% or more of the Greek-
> challenged English Bible readers see it as a command to the
> congregation to permit the fellow to leave. Maybe even some listers
> see it that way as well.

Yes, I hope many listers do so. I accept that the English word "let" may not be the best translation, because English 
does not have a grammatically encoded 3. ps. jussive. However, there are other modals that could be used. In many cases 
"should" would better catch the obligation implied by the 3. ps. jussive, at other times "may" as a wish or "please" as 
a request might be used. There is no single word in English that can be used in all context to express the Greek 3.ps. 
jussive.

> To the latter I would suggest Matt. 27:42 as
> a grammatical parallel: "...let Him now come down from the cross, and
> we will believe in HIm." Clearly this command is not addressed to the
> crowd, asking their permission for Jesus to leave the cross, but is a
> derisive command or dare addressed to Jesus himself.

The speakers here are not directly addressing Jesus, but rather one another. Again, it is neither command nor 
permission, but perceived obligation. What about translating: "He should come down from the cross! Then we'll believe 
him."

> Now then, lately it occurred to me that there might be some grounds
> for the idea that a third-person imperative could be addressed to a
> superior from an inferior in the sense of a request. A good example
> would be the idea of a command addressed to God as a request. To
> illustrate this, consider a passage like Ps. 31:17: "...let the
> wicked be put to shame, let them be silent." Again, the "let" is
> problematic, but permission is not an option as an interpretation,
> and in fact the grammar is actually two commands (jussives) addressed
> to the wicked.

A request is certainly a possibility for the 3.ps. jussive.

> That brings me back to 1 Cor. 7:15. Grammatically, "let him leave" is
> a command to the unbeliever, with no ambiguity. But is it possible
> that Paul's intent is to order the congregation not to stand in the
> unbeliever's way, and the third-person command is a polite way to
> express this, i.e. a third-person being substituted for a second-
> person command?

"If the unbeliever is in the process of leaving, then he should leave!"

We don't need to talk about substituting. The 3. ps. jussive is very common in the GNT and to get a feel for how it is 
used, one should look up and examine (DOKIMAZETW) and categorize the 254 occurrences. It is not adequate to look at how 
"let" is used in English. Nor I am suggesting that "should" is always the best translation. It all depends on context, 
and if you are a translator, I expect you have understood the supremacy of context both for exegesis and translation.

>
> Now I anticipate that someone will be tempted to quote Dan Wallace to
> me (GGBTB on or near p. 485), something like "The imperative
> shouldn't be called the command mode because it does other things as
> well."

I don't have a copy of Wallace, but what he says here is correct, although rather brief. It is the 3. ps. "imperative" 
that shouldn't be called a command (nor a permission). It is not a third person command. Actually, there is no such 
thing as a third person command or a first person command.

Iver Larsen
Bible Translation consultant




More information about the B-Greek mailing list